For one they never (intentionally) show the end user that Flash has crashed, no visible stacktraces, no error messages, just silent failure. Thus avoiding attention being drawn towards it as a technology that is unstable which something Java has picked up with all its history of locking up systems and crashing browsers.

Second they have a really smooth, consistent and painless (almost one click) update mechanism, unlike java for example where you must run a full heavyweight installer, run the risk of installing bundled adware, see ads for other Oracle products, have it take over 5 minutes to complete, etc.

Flash also just works and doesn't spend time alerting end-users that its a plugin. Java on the other hand has a massive Java logo when starting any applet (hey end-user look Java is starting, if anything goes wrong you'll know where to vent your frustration), multiple system tray icons appearing (why are they needed anyway?), etc (They even did the same thing for Java Apps running on mobiles). Why is so much advertising needed for Java to people already using it? they don't need to know or care what their content is using.

Embedded applet just keeps loading something, but webstart link started an application in 20 seconds. System was Win7-64bit, Firefox5.0-32bit, javafx-2_0-beta-b37-windows-i586-19_jul_2011.exe. About the application itself....well....I saw the starfield, you(?) blabbing, heard Linkin Park = Total Awesome Experience. We the people want to see the source code.

But even Flash's updater is dead simple and really pretty. It's stuff like that which helps to make it look like a good platform.

Its updater/installer is very buggy. The weight of the updater/installer is about 3 MB but it download more than 10 MB of data. Even on Windows, the last time I had to install Flash, I had problems, I had to try to do it several times to make it work.

But even Flash's updater is dead simple and really pretty. It's stuff like that which helps to make it look like a good platform.

Its updater/installer is very buggy. The weight of the updater/installer is about 3 MB but it download more than 10 MB of data. Even on Windows, the last time I had to install Flash, I had problems, I had to try to do it several times to make it work.

IMO the Flash installer beats Java's one hands down. The Java one is about 15mb (5x that of Flash!) and extracts well over 60mb, not forgetting the above mentioned issues (multiple clicks, ads, bundled adware, taking much longer than flash's installer, etc). Personally had much more failures and problems with it than the Flash one.

A few years ago, I have had tonnes of failures with the Flash installer. Especially when it has been run from inside the browser (which is cool), but then just failed essentially saying "you need to install this yourself outside of FireFox". I've also tried to install Flash on restricted PC's where it all appeared to be fine, but just nothing happened by the end. It would be better if the installer could say very early on, you can't install then, then silently fail.

To be fair the Java installer has always worked for me, but it still really sucks. The updater however is terrible. I especially hate how every few months I have to go over my PC and remove multiple old versions. It's not just Java itself, it's also things like the plugins it adds to the browsers (a different plugin for version). A friend of mine described it as being like a virus, in that you end up with tonnes of Java files all over your PC.

Getting back to JavaFX, can it be used by an applet without the user needing to have it pre-installed?

Updated just about everything. It's about 70% finished now.Still can't kill boss or die, but you take her life points down to 0. She switches her pattern at mid life.Added sound effects (player bullets only so far)Added open source music for BG.

It's awesome that it is finally out, but I can't help thinking it's too little too late. Anyone who wanted to build very modern applications, would already be looking at the many alternatives (WPF, Adobe Air and HTML/CSS to name a few). If your already using Java, then this is great, but if your not, then there seems to be very little reason to switch over.

Plus WPF is bundled with .NET, lots of users have Adobe Air installed, whilst JavaFX is not bundled with Java (but hopefully that will change).

JavaFx is a great replacement for Swing and AWT. If I wanted to write an IDE, or some other workstation rich-client app, it's perfect. JavaFX also seems to include an improved web plugin and web start functionality from older Java approaches.

But, for a game, I'd use an OpenGL binding or maybe a game specific engine built on top of the OpenGL bindings.

I can't see anyone wanting to use the JavaFX scenegraph system for a game.

Oracle claims that the JavaFX runtime will be part of Java 8 (!) JRE's. Thus once Java 8 is the de-facto standard you can really start relying on your customers having it across all platforms. They also claim that we'll be at JavaFX 3.0 by then.

You might not have noticed but Sun & Oracle have been talking about 'Java 7' solely as 'JDK7' for years. I think the same applies for 'Java 8', for which there will simply be a JRE version, JavaFX included.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings!

You might not have noticed but Sun & Oracle have been talking about 'Java 7' solely as 'JDK7' for years. I think the same applies for 'Java 8', for which there will simply be a JRE version, JavaFX included.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org